How can you be sure sola scriptura is wrong

[e-catholic]

The deuterocanonical books were in dispute for so long and held to secondary
status that it would be problematic to say that they contain the voice of God
since most people did not recognize them to be His voice.
Jn. 10:27
“My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”

This is only important if you believe in Sola Scriptura. The Catholic Church believes in what has been believed since the time of the Apostles. We do not depend on a literal interpretation of Scripture.

 

[godbless]

Damo, Your last post was virtually unreadable. It was presented in typical Protestant fashion, that being one of collated scriptural references from all over the Bible, all of them snippets extracted out of their contextual framework, and woven together with other such verses, to prove the particular point that you are trying to make. That’s what a researcher would call “Bad Science”.

 

[Damo73]

And what verses were taken out of context?

 

[Montalban]

If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

I believe there should only be one church, i just need to know why i believe.

So you’re arguing none can be correct? (because the Protestants aren’t united, and neither is the RCC and EO churches)

 

[Montalban]

In 1 Tim. 5:17-18, Paul tells Timothy, “…for the Scripture says…” and then goes on to quote two passages, one from Deuteronomy 25, the other, NOT FROM THE O.T., but from Luke 10:7. So Paul quotes Luke and refers to it as “Scripture” alongside an OT verse. The Gospel of Luke can therefore be considered Scripture alongside the OT.

I am aware it took some time to for the Bible as we know to come about, however the writtings of the apostles were regarded as scripture long befor this.

There’s a massive bit of illogic in your post. Paul’s very letter of 1 Timothy can’t have at the time he wrote it, quoting Luke, have been in the Bible, because the Bible wouldn’t have been finalised if he was still writing it. Therefore he’s not quoting ‘the Bible’ but a book that would later be used in the Bible. The Bible is an anthology of early Christian writing. It contains books that were written very early on, but they were not drawn together into this collection we now know as the Bible until around the 300s

There’s nothing wrong with Paul being aware of other books that might later all be compiled together into the Bible, and him citing that. This is in fact a good thing, because it shows that he’s aware of Luke’s Gospel, and approves of it.

He also quotes from a source that never made it into the Bible such as this early hymn
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: “Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

Marcion is believed to have brought together the ‘first Bible’ (though this was not approved)

Marcion’s Bible c. 140 AD

Gospel according to Luke

Romans

I Corinthians

II Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians (Laodiceans)

Colossians

Thessalonians I

Thessalonians II

Philemon

Irenaeus c. 180 AD

Gospel according to Matthew

Gospel according to Mark

Gospel according to Luke

Gospel according to John

Acts

Romans

I Corinthians

II Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Thessalonians I

Thessalonians II

I Timothy

II Timothy

Titus

James (?)

1 Peter

1 John

Revelation of John

Shepherd of Hermas

Muratorian c. 200 AD

Gospel according to Matthew (?)

Gospel according to Mark (?)

Gospel according to Luke

Gospel according to John

Acts

Romans

I Corinthians

II Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

Thessalonians I

Thessalonians II

I Timothy

II Timothy

Titus

1 John

2 John

Jude

Revelation of John

Revelation of Solomon

Revelation of Peter

Eusebius c. 325 AD

Gospel according to Matthew

Gospel according to Mark

Gospel according to Luke

John

Acts

Romans

I Corinthians

II Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

Thessalonians I

Thessalonians II

I Timothy

II Timothy

Titus

1 Peter

1 John

Jude

Revelation of John

Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 293-373)

Gospel according to Matthew

Gospel according to Mark

Gospel according to Luke

Gospel according to John

Acts

Romans

I Corinthians

II Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

I Thessalonians

II Thessalonians

I Timothy

II Timothy

Titus

Philemon

Hebrews

James

I Peter

II Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Revelation of John

ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_canons.htm

 

[Damo73]

I am saying if sola scriptura is wrong, because it has only caused division and this is the proof of why, then the catholic and orthodox church must also be wrong, because they seperated, so you could argue the church has split several times if you were to include protestants, the catholic church must not be from God because of all the division.And i did not say it was in the Bible at that time, i said that the gospels were seen as scripture before the Bible was put together.

I just want a better argument than this, it can not be wrong just because of the division.

 

[Damo73]

I just thought i would let you know that solo scriptura is different from sola scriptura.When reading the Bible the other disciples views are always looked at, so are the church fathers to put it in to context, it is the bible that comes first, then we look at the church history, it is just the Bible has priority.We do not believe the Holy spirit has grown in knowledge, he already knows everything so the history of the church fathers are very important.

 

[Blinky]

The schism between the East and West had more to do with authority than with scriptural interpretation.

 

[Montalban]

I am saying if sola scriptura is wrong, because it has only caused division and this is the proof of why, then the catholic and orthodox church must also be wrong, because they seperated, so you could argue the church has split several times if you were to include protestants, the catholic church must not be from God because of all the division.And i did not say it was in the Bible at that time, i said that the gospels were seen as scripture before the Bible was put together.

I just want a better argument than this, it can not be wrong just because of the division.

Just because there is division doesn’t make the ‘core’ incorrect.

 

[Montalban]

I just thought i would let you know that solo scriptura is different from sola scriptura.When reading the Bible the other disciples views are always looked at, so are the church fathers to put it in to context, it is the bible that comes first, then we look at the church history, it is just the Bible has priority.We do not believe the Holy spirit has grown in knowledge, he already knows everything so the history of the church fathers are very important.

The Bible didn’t have priority to the people in it. Paul didn’t have ‘the Bible’ to look at.

 

[santaro75]

The Council of Nicea did NOT actually make the original decision about which books were to be part of the Bible. What the councils did do was no so much decide, as AGREE with what had already been decided by the Apostles and was already in practice in the churches all over the world.

Remember at the time of the Council of Nicea that the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy did Not yet exist. It did not have that little piece of real estate yet in the Vatican until after 325 A.D. It was after the Council of Nicea that the Emperor set up the Catholic Church.

and in regard to the Pseudopigraphia it was not until the Council of Trent, when the Pseudopigraphia would be treated as Holy Scripture itself. In other words, 1500 years after Jesus Died (and rose again), the Roman Catholic Church decided to change which books should be included in the Bible

I have been through this. the devil is screaming in your ear to keep you from choosing what you want to choose. It will pass.

as for the RCC. it may only be formally created after 325 as you say, but it was essentially the same in belief and practic before that. As it is essentially the same in belief and practice today.

It really bugs me when people imply that before the RCC was offically recognized it was more like a baptist church. And that all the real christians that believe like baptists ran underground until the reformation. Does anyone else think this sounds so dumb that even a two year old could tell it wasn’t true?

 

[StRaphael]

To sum up, I will refer to a blog post from May in which I stated, “Sola Scriptura really ought to be abandoned because it is unbiblical, unhistorical, illogical, inconsistent, impractical, and improbable.”

 

[VociMike]

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not equally true. The Ortodox Churches, while maintaining the priesthood and thus the sacraments, does not have the fullness of truth because they are not in union with the Bishop of Rome.

But more than this, to point out that “B is false because of disunity” in no way proves that thus “A is true in spite of disunity”.

The point is clear. If sola Scriptura were true, there would be only one set of biblical beliefs. And there would be none of this fudging about “essential” and “non-essential” beliefs (as though the Holy Spirit would be OK with having doubt cast on the truth of Scripture by letting people come to different conclusions about trivial matters!)

 

[tequilamac]

The primary reason I found sola scriptura to be wrong is that Catholics have the most literal interpretation of the New Testament of any Church around. Those who claim Sola Scriptura usually reference the Old Testament. Creation in seven days and so forth. But when it comes to the Last Supper, sola scriptura goes right out the window unless one is Catholic. If one is Catholic, one takes Christ’s words literally.
Another proof of the cafeterianess of sola scriptura is I have never met a sola scripturist who has cut off his hand, gouged out his right eye, etc. in order not to offend. Most sola scripturists seem to be uniquely intact anatomically and enormously clean cut. From these two things alone and not from my weak bible knowledge did I determine that sola scriptura was non existent in any religion except, well, Catholicism. As far as I can see, we have the most literal reading of the Bible of any religion around. Because we believe Christ when he said “This is my Body.”

 

[VociMike]

The Council of Nicea did NOT actually make the original decision about which books were to be part of the Bible. What the councils did do was no so much decide, as AGREE with what had already been decided by the Apostles and was already in practice in the churches all over the world.

There is no point in having multiple councils agree to something that everybody already agrees to. Do we have multiple councils that needed to tell us that objects fall towards the earth and not away from it?

Can you point out any other doctrinal decision made by a council that was already universally accepted by the Church? Councils exist to clarify those things which have come into question. Starting with the council of Jerusalem in Acts.

 

[StRaphael]

Damo73, here are some defenses of the historicity of the aforementioned deuterocanonical books from The Catholic Encyclopedia at NewAdvent:

TOBIAS

(e) Certain historical difficulties are due to the very imperfect condition in whch the text has reached us.

(i) It was Theglathphalasar III who led Nephthali (2 Kings 15:29) into captivity (734 B.C.), and not, as Tobias says (i, 2), Salmanasar. Yet this reading of the Vulgate, Old Latin, and Aramaic is to be corrected by the name Enemesar of AB and Aleph. The latter reading would be equivalent to the Hebrew transliteration of the Assyrian kenum sar. As the appellative sar “king”, may precede or follow a personal name, kenum sar is sar kenum, that is Gargon (sarru-kenu II, B.C. 722). It can readily be that, twelve years after Theglath-phalasar III began the deportation of Israel out of Samaria, Sardon’s scouts completed the work and routed some of the tribe of Nephthali from their fastnesses.
(ii) A like solution is to be given to the difficulty that Sennacherib is said to have been the son of Salmanasar (i, 18), whereas he was the son of the usurper Sargon. The Vulgate reading here, as in i, 2, should be that of AB and Aleph, to wit, Enemesar; and this stands for Sargon.
(iii) In B, xiv, 15, Ninive is said to have been captured by Ahasuerus (Asoueros) and Nabuchodonosor. This is a mistake of the scribe. Aleph reads that Achiacharos took Ninive and adds that “he praised God for all He had done against the children of Ninive and Assyria”. The word for Assyria is Athoureias, Hebrew asshur, Aramaic ahur: This Greek word mislead the scribe to write Lsyeros for the name of the king, Achiacharos, i.e. the Median King Cyaxares. According to Berossus, Cyaxares was, in his campaign against Ninive, allied to the Babylonian King Nabopalassar, the father of Nabuchodonosor; the scribe of V has written the name for the son for that of the father, as Nabopalassar was unknown to him.
(iv) Rages is a Seleucid town and hence an anachronism. Not at all; it is an ancient Median town, which the Seleucids restored.

JUDITH

(a) According to what we may term “conservative” criticism, these apparent difficulties can every one be harmonized with the view that the book is perfectly historical and deals with facts which actually took place. Thus, the geographical errors may be ascribed to the translators of the original text or to copyists living long after the book was composed, and consequently ignorant of the details referred to. Calmet insists that the Biblical Nabuchodonosor is meant, while in Arphaxad he sees Phraortes whose name, as Vigoroux (Les Livres Saints et La Critique Rationaliste, iv, 4th ed.) shows, could easily have been thus perverted.

Vigoroux, however, in accordance with recent Assyrian discoveries, identifies Nabuchodonosor with Assur-bani-pal, the contemporary of Phraortes. This enables him to refer the events to the time of the captivity of Manasses under Assur-bani-pal (2 Chronicles 33:11; cf. Sayce, “Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments”, 4th ed., p. 458). It is further maintained that the campaign conducted by Holofernes is well illustrated in the records of Assur-bani-pal which have come down to us. And these facts will undoubtedly afford an explanation of the apparent allusion to the captivity; it was indeed a Restoration, but that of Manasses, not that under Esdras. The reference, too, to the Sanhedrin is doubtful; the term gerousia is used of the “ancients” in Lev., ix, 3, etc. Lastly, Conder’s identification of Bethulia with Mithilia (loc. cit. supra) is highly probable. Moreover, the writer who described the strategical position in iv, 1-6, knew the geography of Palestine thoroughly. And we are given details about the death of Judith’s husband which (viii, 2-4) can hardly be attributed to art, but are rather indications that Judith represents a really existing heroine. With regard to the state of the text it should be noted that the extraordinary variants presented in the various versions are themselves a proof that the versions were derived from a copy dating from a period long antecedent to the time of its translators (cf. Calmet, “Introd. in Lib. Judith”).

(b) Some few Catholic writers are not satisfied with Calmet’s solution of the difficulties of the Book of Judith; they deem the errors of translators and of scribes to be no sufficient explanation in this matter. These few Catholics, together with the non-Catholics that do not care to throw the book over entirely into the realm of fiction, assure us that the Book of Judith has a solid historical foundation. …

 

[MrS]

The Catholic Church affirms:

Solo Dei Verbum… as the ONLY source of Truth…

Only the Word of God.

The question then arises… Where do we find the Word of God.

Well, according to Scripture, the Tradition, and the Magisterium, we find it in three places.

Scripture, The Canon of writings by human beings under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and given to the world only by the Catholic Church

Traditon, the teachings of the Apostles, much of which is also found in the written version of the Word of God… the Scriptures

Magisterium, the teaching body of the only Church founded by Christ Himself. When they teach Truth, that is matters of Faith and Morals, it too is a source of Dei Verbum.

Now, while this may seem like a circle to you, it is. And Christ is at the center. And He is the Source of the three witnesses to Himself, the Truth.

.

 

[VociMike]

Councils exist to clarify those things which have come into question. Starting with the council of Jerusalem in Acts.

It further occurs to me that a “bible-believing Christian” really is on very thin ice to claim that the councils which gave us the canon of Scripture were just reaffirming what everybody already knew, precisely because the only example of a council in the bible, that held in Jerusalem, shows that councils are convened to deal with serious issues that are not resolved. Issues about which there are serious questions.

So the fact that multiple councils which pronounced on the canon must mean, to a “bible-believing Christian”, that the canon was not settled before that time.

 

[jemfinch]

And these writings were not formally put into the Bible canonically until around the 2nd century.

You mean the fourth century.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

In 1 Tim. 5:17-18, Paul tells Timothy, “…for the Scripture says…” and then goes on to quote two passages, one from Deuteronomy 25, the other, NOT FROM THE O.T., but from Luke 10:7. So Paul quotes Luke and refers to it as “Scripture” alongside an OT verse. The Gospel of Luke can therefore be considered Scripture alongside the OT.

Paul also quoted a poet from Crete in his letter to Titus, should that poet’s writings be in the Bible?

Paul also quotes oral Tradition when writing his letters. In his second letter to Timothy, he refers to Jannes and Jambres, two names that don’t appear in the Old Testament: their names are matters of Jewish oral tradition, much like “Moses’ seat” that Christ Himself referred to. Paul also quotes Jesus as saying something that no gospel records Him as saying: “It is better to give than to receive.” These are solid evidences that oral tradition (both Jewish and Christian) is a significantly larger corpus than the Bible.

I am aware it took some time to for the Bible as we know to come about, however the writtings of the apostles were regarded as scripture long before this.

Luke wasn’t an apostle.

Jeremy